{"id":5382,"date":"2026-09-02T11:12:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T08:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/?p=5382"},"modified":"2026-09-02T11:12:03","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T08:12:03","slug":"statute-of-limitations-on-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/statute-of-limitations-on-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"Statute of Limitations on Enforcement Arising During the Enforcement Proceedings. Administrative Acts of the Bailiff and Assignment Notices Do Not Interrupt the Limitation Period"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-cluj-napoca-local-court-annulment-of-enforcement-acts-issued-after-the-limitation-period-had-run\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Cluj-Napoca Local Court: Annulment of Enforcement Acts Issued After the Limitation Period Had Run<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By Civil Judgment No. 1068\/2026, rendered by the Cluj-Napoca Local Court (<em>Judec\u0103toria Cluj-Napoca<\/em>), the court granted an objection to enforcement (<em>contesta\u021bie la executare<\/em>) and found that the creditor&#8217;s right to request the continuation of compulsory enforcement had become time-barred during the course of the enforcement proceedings, as a result of the absence of any effective enforcement acts for a period of more than three years. Consequently, all enforcement acts drawn up after the limitation period had expired were annulled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling is significant because it clarifies the distinction between enforcement acts proper and mere administrative steps taken within the enforcement file, establishing that only the former have the effect of interrupting the limitation period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-facts-enforcement-proceedings-opened-in-2012-and-resumed-more-than-a-decade-later\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Facts. Enforcement Proceedings Opened in 2012 and Resumed More Than a Decade Later<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The compulsory enforcement proceedings were opened on the basis of a credit agreement concluded in 2006, with the original creditor requesting enforcement in 2012. The enforcement file was opened before a bailiff&#8217;s office and was subsequently taken over by another bailiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The debtor filed an objection to enforcement after learning, in May 2025, that a garnishment (<em>poprire<\/em>) had been instituted over his income. He argued that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>he had not been notified for a very long period of time;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the creditor&#8217;s right to seek compulsory enforcement had become time-barred;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the claim had not been properly individualized, as the method used to calculate and update the amounts being pursued had not been disclosed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During the proceedings, the objecting party clarified that he was not merely invoking the limitation period that had run before the enforcement began, but also the limitation period that had run during the enforcement proceedings, pointing out that the last enforcement act with interrupting effect had been issued many years before enforcement resumed in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-determining-the-applicable-procedural-law\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Determining the Applicable Procedural Law<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court held that, since the enforcement proceedings had been opened before the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure, the entire legal regime governing enforcement and the limitation period was governed by the provisions of the 1865 Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-article-24-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Article 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8220;The provisions of the new procedural law apply only to proceedings and enforcement proceedings commenced after its entry into force.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Starting from this transitional rule, the court applied the provisions of the former Code of Civil Procedure both with respect to the objection to enforcement and with respect to the limitation period applicable to enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-objection-of-late-filing-of-the-enforcement-challenge\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Objection of Late Filing of the Enforcement Challenge<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The creditor raised the objection that the challenge had been filed out of time, arguing that the first enforcement acts had been communicated as far back as 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court, however, drew an essential distinction between:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>a challenge directed against the enforcement proceedings themselves; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>a challenge directed against subsequent enforcement acts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-article-401-1-c-of-the-1865-code-of-civil-procedure\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Article 401(1)(c) of the 1865 Code of Civil Procedure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8220;The challenge may be filed within 15 days of the date on which the objecting party received the formal demand or of the date on which he became aware of the first enforcement act.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-article-401-1-a-of-the-1865-code-of-civil-procedure\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Article 401(1)(a) of the 1865 Code of Civil Procedure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8220;The challenge may be filed within 15 days of the date on which the objecting party became aware of the enforcement act being challenged.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Examining the proof of service contained in the enforcement file, the court found that the first enforcement acts had been lawfully communicated in 2012. For this reason:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the criticisms concerning the limitation period that had allegedly run before enforcement began; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the criticisms concerning the alleged lack of certainty of the claim;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">were held to have been raised after the statutory deadline and were dismissed as time-barred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By contrast, the arguments relating to the limitation period that had run during the course of the enforcement proceedings were found to have been raised in time, since they were directed against the enforcement acts communicated in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-legal-regime-governing-the-limitation-period-for-enforcement-under-the-former-code-of-civil-procedure\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Legal Regime Governing the Limitation Period for Enforcement Under the Former Code of Civil Procedure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In analyzing the remaining ground of the challenge, the court examined the provisions on the interruption of the limitation period applicable to enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-article-405\u00b2-1-d-of-the-1865-code-of-civil-procedure\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Article 405\u00b2(1)(d) of the 1865 Code of Civil Procedure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8220;The running of the limitation period is interrupted on the date an enforcement act is carried out in the course of the enforcement proceedings.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court emphasized that this provision expressly allows for the limitation period to run out even while enforcement proceedings are ongoing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In other words, each enforcement act has an interrupting effect and triggers the start of a new limitation period. However, if the bailiff and the creditor remain inactive for a period longer than the statutory limitation period, the right to continue enforcement is extinguished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-what-acts-were-identified-in-the-enforcement-file\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">What Acts Were Identified in the Enforcement File<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Upon examining the enforcement file, the court found the following steps had been taken:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>a formal demand (<em>soma\u021bie<\/em>) issued in 2012;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>letters sent to local town halls requesting information;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>requests sent to the National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration (OCPI);<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>database inquiries;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>notices concerning successive assignments of the claim;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>requests filed by creditors for the continuation of enforcement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court noted that, during the period under review:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>no garnishments had been instituted;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>no effective seizure of assets had taken place;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>no acts had been carried out that actually led to the recovery of the claim.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-why-letters-to-authorities-and-bailiff-inquiries-do-not-interrupt-the-limitation-period\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why Letters to Authorities and Bailiff Inquiries Do Not Interrupt the Limitation Period<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A particularly important aspect of the ruling is the distinction drawn between administrative acts and enforcement acts proper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court expressly held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>letters sent to town halls;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>requests sent to land registry offices;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>database checks; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>inquiries carried out by the bailiff;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">do not constitute compulsory enforcement acts and have no effect in interrupting the limitation period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-the-court-s-reasoning\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Court&#8217;s Reasoning<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the court&#8217;s reasoning, only those acts which actually pursue the recovery of the claim and which concretely lead to its enforcement, even partially, have an interrupting effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Mere steps taken to gather documentation or to obtain information about the debtor&#8217;s assets are not capable of interrupting the limitation period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-why-assignment-notices-do-not-interrupt-the-limitation-period-on-enforcement\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why Assignment Notices Do Not Interrupt the Limitation Period on Enforcement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The creditor argued that the notices concerning the successive assignments of the claim should have the effect of interrupting the limitation period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court categorically rejected this defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-the-court-s-arguments\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Court&#8217;s Arguments<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Article 405\u00b2(1) of the 1865 Code of Civil Procedure does not list notice of assignment among the grounds for interruption;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>nor do the rules governing the assignment of claims provide for any such effect;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8220;notice of assignment merely informs [the debtor] of a change in the holder of the claim.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consequently, the transfer of the claim from one creditor to another cannot revive or extend the limitation period applicable to the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-finding-that-the-limitation-period-on-enforcement-had-run\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Finding That the Limitation Period on Enforcement Had Run<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After examining the entire enforcement file, the court established that the last enforcement act with interrupting effect had been the formal demand communicated in 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From that moment until the issuance of the new enforcement acts in 2025, no enforcement acts within the meaning of Article 405\u00b2(1)(d) of the 1865 Code of Civil Procedure had been carried out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under these circumstances, the limitation period had expired long before enforcement resumed, meaning the creditor no longer had the right to continue the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-court-s-decision\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Court&#8217;s Decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Cluj-Napoca Local Court ordered:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the partial admission of the objection to enforcement;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the annulment of all enforcement acts drawn up after the expiry of the limitation period;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>that the creditor pay the costs of the proceedings;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the refund of the court stamp duty once the judgment becomes final.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-conclusions-the-limitation-period-on-enforcement-may-run-even-after-enforcement-has-begun\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusions. The Limitation Period on Enforcement May Run Even After Enforcement Has Begun<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling confirms an essential rule in enforcement matters: the mere existence of an open enforcement file does not prevent the limitation period from running out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In order for enforcement to remain timely, genuine enforcement acts must be carried out \u2014 acts capable of actually leading to the recovery of the claim. Administrative correspondence, database inquiries, requests for information, or assignment notices do not have the character of enforcement acts and do not interrupt the running of the limitation period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From a practical standpoint, this decision is an important argument in disputes concerning the statute of limitations on enforcement, the annulment of garnishments, objections to enforcement brought against debt collectors, the effects of the assignment of claims on enforcement proceedings, and the identification of acts that interrupt the limitation period on enforcement \u2014 issues frequently encountered in court practice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cluj-Napoca Local Court: Annulment of Enforcement Acts Issued After the Limitation Period Had Run By Civil Judgment No. 1068\/2026, rendered by the Cluj-Napoca Local Court (Judec\u0103toria Cluj-Napoca), the court granted an objection to enforcement (contesta\u021bie la executare) and found that the creditor&#8217;s right to request the continuation of compulsory enforcement had become time-barred during the &#8230; <\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more-container\"><a title=\"Statute of Limitations on Enforcement Arising During the Enforcement Proceedings. Administrative Acts of the Bailiff and Assignment Notices Do Not Interrupt the Limitation Period\" class=\"read-more button\" href=\"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/statute-of-limitations-on-enforcement\/#more-5382\" aria-label=\"Read more about Statute of Limitations on Enforcement Arising During the Enforcement Proceedings. Administrative Acts of the Bailiff and Assignment Notices Do Not Interrupt the Limitation Period\">Vezi articol<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","masonry-post","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-50"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5382"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5382\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5383,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5382\/revisions\/5383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brisc.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}